Talk:Francium

Predicted GHS and NFPA 704
I think if there are GHS and NFPA datas for francium, the hazard data is expected to be like this:

That will dominate the most hazardous element in every aspect! They will be explosive, flammable, corrosive, extremely toxic, carcinogenic, and extremely hazardous to environment.

2405:9800:BA31:F6:8071:4ACA:97FD:8D99 (talk) 09:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you add a source for this? And, no P-phrases? -DePiep (talk) 09:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I added P-phrases, which come from many articles about chemical elements. Note that my predicted P-phrases may not be 100% accurate. 2405:9800:BA31:F6:9592:104:4E5D:50FD (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanx. Still, we need sources for such statements in the article, so please add links (just copy the url). Note thate the sources must be RS: reliable sources, representing scientific research or (in GHS case) authotities. -DePiep (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course, but don't worry that the predicted hazards may not be accurate since there are no source here. I can't find the hazard data for francium from any sources, so this is only just the sample of the hazard data for francium. 2405:9800:BA31:F6:9592:104:4E5D:50FD (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This would all presumably be overwhelmed by the gigantic radiation hazards. :D Double sharp (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Lead Image
I have noticed that the Francium article does not have a lead image of the pure sample like many other element pages. This is obviously because bulk francium has never been prepared.

However, later in the article, it shows an image of light of 200,000 francium atoms and an image of heat from 300,000 francium atoms.

Though this is obviously not the same as a bulk sample, I think we should use one of these images as a lead image, as it is the closest thing we have to a macroscopic sample of francium. We could also provide a caption with it that explains how it is a light or heat image.

2601:600:9080:A4B0:B17F:E0A9:50F5:577E (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Since nobody has objected I will add the image. OmegaMantis (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Never mind, just realized it's a non-free image. Won't use it. OmegaMantis (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Melting point
I wonder how scientists were able to get enough francium atoms together to be able to identify a specific melting point given its short half-life. MightyArms (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * See Francium, which says (refs omitted):
 * Francium's melting point was estimated to be around 8.0 C; a value of 27 C is also often encountered. The melting point is uncertain because of the element's extreme rarity and radioactivity; a different extrapolation based on Dmitri Mendeleev's method gave 20 ±. A calculation based on the melting temperatures of binary ionic crystals gives 24.861 ±.
 * I think that covers your question. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of this assumes that Fr continues the trend of the lighter alkali metals, which thanks to relativistic effects, should not be the case. It's likely that Fr has a slightly higher melting point than Cs. I've so far not seen anyone outright say this in a journal article, though. Double sharp (talk) 06:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Amount of Francium in earth's crust
Two quite differentvalues are given for the estimate of the amount of Francium in the earth's crust. One, unreferenced, is 200-500 g, while the second, referenced, is an ounce (28 g, I presume). It would be good to either pull these two estiamted into the same place in the text, or decide which is more reasonable. The use of the word 'ounce' makes that estiamte seem to be from American popular literature, not a scientific assessment. 202.172.113.133 (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The amount that exists is necessarily an estimate, because the short half-life means that any amount of francium only exists as a radioactive decay product of actinium, itself a radioactive decay product. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We need to be consistent. The source says, so this value should be reflected in the lead. The 200-500 g value is inconsistent with the referenced value in the article. Polyamorph (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've changed the abundance in the lead section for consistency with the currently referenced value. Polyamorph (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)